2018 NFL Draft

O/U 1.5 on Nebraska Players Drafted

  • Over

    Votes: 19 50.0%

  • Under

    Votes: 19 50.0%
  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .
People love to use the number of 3-stars drafted to argue that recruiting rankings suck and it cracks me up because there are so many more of them.

In the above, there were 4,032 3-stars in 3 years. 1,344 on average per year if I'm reading this correctly. A "whopping" 107 (8%) were drafted this year and I'm assuming they skew strongly towards the later rounds.

There were 33 5-stars per year and 19 (58%) got drafted.

22% of 4-stars got drafted.

So 5-stars are 2.64x as likely to get drafted as 4-stars and 7.25x as likely to get drafted as 3-stars. If you took just the first 3 rounds those values would be even higher.

Rankings aren't perfect but they do a good job.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My hubby just showed me that the Eagles just picked up a rugby player for their OLine who has never played football.  Pretty telling that the guy is a better option than a certain O-lineman out of Nebraska who HAS played the sport and position.

 
Dilly Dilly said:
My hubby just showed me that the Eagles just picked up a rugby player for their OLine who has never played football.  Pretty telling that the guy is a better option than a certain O-lineman out of Nebraska who HAS played the sport and position.
Click to expand...
Relax, its just the eagles, filling out their practice squad.

 
Nebfanatic said:
So 5 stars are still the most successful players. Clocking in at an almost 20% draft rate is a fair amount better than any other group
Click to expand...


Where are you getting this 20% draft rate for 5 stars? 

For 2018, only 8% of 5 stars were drafted.  Did you add all the years percentages together to get 20%?  (I am asking because I don't know what methodology you used--not attempting to be snarky.)

 
Moiraine said:
People love to use the number of 3-stars drafted to argue that recruiting rankings suck and it cracks me up because there are so many more of them.

In the above, there were 4,032 3-stars in 3 years. 1,344 on average per year if I'm reading this correctly. A "whopping" 107 (8%) were drafted this year and I'm assuming they skew strongly towards the later rounds.

There were 33 5-stars per year and 19 (58%) got drafted.

22% of 4-stars got drafted.

So 5-stars are 2.64x as likely to get drafted as 4-stars and 7.25x as likely to get drafted as 3-stars. If you took just the first 3 rounds those values would be even higher.

Rankings aren't perfect but they do a good job.
Click to expand...


In the above tweet, in 2018, only 8% of 5 star rated players were drafted.

If we look at individual years 2017, 2016, etc is the percentage about the same?

I guess what I am saying is, I do not understand your methodology of how you arrived at a 58% draft rate for 5 stars.  Could you explain?  (I freely admit that statistics are not my strong suit.)

 
Moiraine said:
People love to use the number of 3-stars drafted to argue that recruiting rankings suck and it cracks me up because there are so many more of them.

In the above, there were 4,032 3-stars in 3 years. 1,344 on average per year if I'm reading this correctly. A "whopping" 107 (8%) were drafted this year and I'm assuming they skew strongly towards the later rounds.

There were 33 5-stars per year and 19 (58%) got drafted.

22% of 4-stars got drafted.

So 5-stars are 2.64x as likely to get drafted as 4-stars and 7.25x as likely to get drafted as 3-stars. If you took just the first 3 rounds those values would be even higher.

Rankings aren't perfect but they do a good job.
Click to expand...


I'm a believer in the rankings over a sufficiently large sample size.

However, the other side of trying to analyze this is assigning an "expected to be drafted" value to each star rating.  That is, a five-star player should be expected to have a better chance to be drafted more-so than a three-star player.  The question is, how much more?

20% seems pretty low to me.  Those are the "can't-miss" players and the recruiting services are pretty selective on how they hand those ratings out.  Only coming through 20% of the time seems like not a great success rate.

Of course, as I type this I realize that they really shouldn't have added three years together to get those numbers.  When there is a recruiting class every year and a draft every year their should be a 1-to-1 ratio over time.  I'm sure what they were trying to do is account for some guys being in school for 3, 4 or 5 years before going into the draft.  But over time those all balance out.  So it should probably be 60% for five-stars.  That seems closer but still a little on the low side.  I would think around 75% would be expected.  There are roughly 33 five-stars each year and 250+ draft spots so it would seem there there should be a place for most of the five-stars to fit in.

 
Making Chimichangas said:
Where are you getting this 20% draft rate for 5 stars? 

For 2018, only 8% of 5 stars were drafted.  Did you add all the years percentages together to get 20%?  (I am asking because I don't know what methodology you used--not attempting to be snarky.)
Click to expand...
If there were 100 5 stars between 13-15 or whatever they used and 19 got drafted then 19% of the 5 stars got drafted. The 8% means out of all of the players, 5 stars make up 8% of the draftees. Pretty impressive number considering less than 1% of prospects are 5 star prospects.

 
Nebfanatic said:
If there were 100 5 stars between 13-15 or whatever they used and 19 got drafted then 19% of the 5 stars got drafted. The 8% means out of all of the players, 5 stars make up 8% of the draftees. Pretty impressive number considering less than 1% of prospects are 5 star prospects.
Click to expand...


This is strictly my opinion, but it seems a little shady (not sure if that's the right word here) to add up the number of 5 stars over a time frame.  To my way of thinking, any analysis of star rankings and draft results should be analyzed one year at a time.  Again though, stats really aren't my strong suit.

And I get the argument that only 1% or so of all prospects are 5 stars, so seeing 8% of the overall total drafted be 5 stars might be considered impressive in some quarters.

However, even if we take that 20% at face value, it seems to me that one could get similar results throwing darts at a board or drawing names out of a hat.  20% is 1 out of 5.  If your stockbroker was right 1 out of 5 times, how long would he (or she) be your stockbroker?

I guess if I boil it down to the essence, here is my biggest issue with recruiting rankings in general: the #1-whatereve individual position ratings are nothing more than a guess.  Nobody truly knows who is the "#1" , the #2 player, #3 player, etc.

And often times the #1 player at a position is NOT the #1 player.  It is this fact combined with recruiting sites self-serving act of selling opinion as fact...that's what really bothers me.

I guess what I am saying is: if in a given year the number of 5 stars drafted was even 50% that would lend much more credence to these recruiting sites and their evaluations.

I want to stress I'm not saying you're wrong or "gotcha" here.  I will agree that recruiting sites have drastically improved in their core evaluations over the years.  However, with so many variables at play regarding whether a player gets drafted or not, all I am saying is, I take recruiting rankings with several grains of salt.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Making Chimichangas said:
This is strictly my opinion, but it seems a little shady (not sure if that's the right word here) to add up the number of 5 stars over a time frame.  To my way of thinking, any analysis of star rankings and draft results should be analyzed one year at a time.  Again though, stats really aren't my strong suit.

And I get the argument that only 1% or so of all prospects are 5 stars, so seeing 8% of the overall total drafted be 5 stars might be considered impressive in some quarters.

However, even if we take that 20% at face value, it seems to me that one could get similar results throwing darts at a board or drawing names out of a hat.  20% is 1 out of 5.  If your stockbroker was right 1 out of 5 times, how long would he (or she) be your stockbroker?
Click to expand...




Nevermind, thanks to @RedDenver

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mavric said:
However, the other side of trying to analyze this is assigning an "expected to be drafted" value to each star rating.  That is, a five-star player should be expected to have a better chance to be drafted more-so than a three-star player.  The question is, how much more?
Click to expand...
I feel like 7.25x is a lot, considering they're making a prediction 3 to 5 years in advance and can't account for variables like which coach and team they end up with. I see the rankings as an evaluation of potential and the number of factors involved means this is incredibly complicated, and it's why it's good to have coaches who are good at picking/developing players. I considering rankings to be a very good guideline.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Making Chimichangas said:
This is strictly my opinion, but it seems a little shady (not sure if that's the right word here) to add up the number of 5 stars over a time frame.  To my way of thinking, any analysis of star rankings and draft results should be analyzed one year at a time.  Again though, stats really aren't my strong suit.

And I get the argument that only 1% or so of all prospects are 5 stars, so seeing 8% of the overall total drafted be 5 stars might be considered impressive in some quarters.

However, even if we take that 20% at face value, it seems to me that one could get similar results throwing darts at a board or drawing names out of a hat.  20% is 1 out of 5.  If your stockbroker was right 1 out of 5 times, how long would he (or she) be your stockbroker?

I guess if I boil it down to the essence, here is my biggest issue with recruiting rankings in general: the #1-whatereve individual position ratings are nothing more than a guess.  Nobody truly knows who is the "#1" , the #2 player, #3 player, etc.

And often times the #1 player at a position is NOT the #1 player.  It is this fact combined with recruiting sites self-serving act of selling opinion as fact...that's what really bothers me.

I guess what I am saying is: if in a given year the number of 5 stars drafted was even 50% that would lend much more credence to these recruiting sites and their evaluations.

I want to stress I'm not saying you're wrong or "gotcha" here.  I will agree that recruiting sites have drastically improved in their core evaluations over the years.  However, with so many variables at play regarding whether a player gets drafted or not, all I am saying is, I take recruiting rankings with several grains of salt.
Click to expand...
The thing is if you went with a one year method you would see a higher percentage of players drafted. It would be closer to 19 of 33 players were drafted. Regardless, they were consistent in how they gathered the data so it doesn't matter. They had numbers for all of the other stars so here are the chances of making the NFL based on your star rating based on the numbers given.

5 star-19%(19/100)

4 star-7.5%(67/901)

3 star-2.6%(107/4032)

2 star-0.6%(18/2644)

Unranked- 0.3%(21/6775)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top